totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[tater]

Presumably SpaceX has been buying up private land. Had they not bought it, it would be covered eventually with little houses like Boca Chica Village, and should anyone else decide later it was a valuable place for tourists at some point in the future, it would then get covered with highrise hotels, condos, etc (like much of the rest of the Gulf Coast). The same few hundred acres would be buildings or paved over. The cars in the parking lots would drop oil that would run off the parking lots, people would have trash blow away (or scumbags would just litter), and the impact is the same, minus the occasional explosion for the SpaceX case (controlled or otherwise).

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by tater

[Beccab]

It seems spacex has begun pumping concrete in the tower a while ago (brown pipe)

The closure for today is still open, so there's a chance we will see S20 or the new tank testing. Crew was checking the S20 hatch a short time ago if that's of any indication

Edited August 25, 2021 by Beccab

[Beccab]

Reposting here as well being relevant:

https://backchannel.substack.com/p/notes-from-the-underground-information

Hacker/leaker leaks alleged ULA internal emails (intent seemingly is to weaponize unions against spacex)

Another relevant part of the leak not included in the article:

https://m.imgur.com/a/DvVTUjD

Authenticity is obviously unknown, but the people involved are real and arguments fit with what we know about the hearing between NASA, ULA and Congress about spacex that happened last June, especially the "chinese interference" part. I won't link the original leak thread shown in the article, but it's available as well

Edited August 25, 2021 by Beccab

[Beccab]

Looks like we missed the move of various raptors, they could have installed almost all of them by now

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

@Beccab - I'd be pretty leery of trusting what you read there. Looks a bit more like someone cribbed an authentic looking email header and put in their own text designed to stir controversy 

"The emails make claims, some of which are verifiable and some which seem to be wildly erroneous..." 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/in-leaked-email-ula-official-calls-nasa-leadership-incompetent/%3famp=1

 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Beccab]

18 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

@Beccab - I'd be pretty leery of trusting what you read there. Looks a bit more like someone cribbed an authentic looking email header and put in their own text designed to stir controversy 

See more details here:

As I mentioned it is impossible to know the autenticity of the emails until CNBC (or anyone else) is able to verify it with ULA, but what we've seen at the moment is at least in part fitting with the information we are aware of (the "Starships And Stripes Forever" Congress+ULA hearing in particular) and nothing has come out to show it as being false yet. What you're saying is definitely possible, we just have to wait and see

Ars has just made an article about it @JoeSchmuckatelli:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/in-leaked-email-ula-official-calls-nasa-leadership-incompetent/

Edited August 25, 2021 by Beccab

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

The timing is odd, however.  The 'date sent' about the purportedly SX favoring 'Trump appointed idiots' in charge happened after said appointees were gone. 

I'm not 100% denying these are authentic - but RU and CN agents have gotten really good at manipulation of American public opinion via insinuations like these.  So I'm very leery about trusting 'leaks'. 

 

...

 

Edit - let me also add this: while our recent SX vs ULA vs BO discussions have all been about domestic (US) launch products and the rapidly (or not so rapidly) changing cultures (Space is Hard, Change is Harder)... there are other entities who are alarmed by SX's progress.  Places where launch tech is intrinsically tied with their military and national pride projects.  Remember - people look at other people through their own filters.  While our legends are replete with US and Soviet misunderstandings / misinterpretations of intentions & capabilities... that tendency has not stopped.  It is likely that policymakers in RU and CN cannot help but see SX as developing military capabilities for the US - and even if they view it's efforts as a National Prestige project... too often people see such as a zero-sum game: 'their' advancement is a mark against 'us.'

So while we in the US are 'comfortable' with inter-corporate competition and see these as natural and not 'government' - people outside the US see it as 'American' advancement and might just want to throw a monkey wrench into the works.  We've proven to be our own worst enemies in the past several years, easily manipulated through hints, innuendo and misinformation spread on social media -- so if it works, why stop using it?

While this edit might sound political - it's actually just a RealPolitik* reminder to readers as we view this latest 'leak' and 'controversy' to ask - 'whose purpose is served' by the release and timing of the communication (regardless of whether it is true or false).  Rather than grab our +4 Lance of Outrage and tilt at the closest windmill (ULA, Unions, Government)... we should remember the whisper-campaigns of middle school.  Not everything 'he said' or 'she said' is true.

 

Thus endeth the sermon.

 

*Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies. \

 

EDIT 2: @SunlitZelkova - I'll append this here, to also take no more space: 
 

Spoiler

Your points in the spoiler (below) are well taken.  I recognize that America =/= world, and admittedly while we have a really cool international forum going on here, my 'sermon' was directed at 'my fellow Americans' (although, here, I'm likely preaching to the converted!).

I'll try to remember my own caution above: " people look at other people through their own filters" - perhaps my suspicions are ill placed... but I think the overall gist of my edit is sound.  When an extraordinary claim is presented, we should not rush to judgement - but await confirmation, and in anything political ask 'whose purpose is served' before deciding to act.

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Entropian]

Last thing we need is a Bismarck of space industry...

[tater]

Looks like Boca Chica:

 

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

15 minutes ago, tater said:

Looks like Boca Chica:

 

 

I'm no geologist... but it looks like the 'rock' they'd be drilling through is pretty much alluvia.

Report 365 chapter 2 (texas.gov)

Sounds like a muddy mess to tunnel through.

[StrandedonEarth]

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Sounds like a muddy mess to tunnel through.

I assume it would be lined with Boring Company bricks? I suppose settling could be a problem, unless they tunnel under something already pre-loaded. I guess  it’s surprising Starbase isn’t slowly sinking with the vibrations of rocket testing. If there’s an earthquake it’ll turn into quicksand…

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

16 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

f there’s an earthquake it’ll turn into quicksand…

yep.

16 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I assume it would be lined with Boring Company bricks?

Me too - most of these modern boring machines auto-place prefabbed concrete rings as they trundle along... and Boston and other 'coastal' mining / boring / tunnelling projects prove its possible.

[Minmus Taster]

 

[tater]

 

 

[SunlitZelkova]

20 hours ago, tater said:

Presumably SpaceX has been buying up private land. Had they not bought it, it would be covered eventually with little houses like Boca Chica Village, and should anyone else decide later it was a valuable place for tourists at some point in the future, it would then get covered with highrise hotels, condos, etc (like much of the rest of the Gulf Coast). The same few hundred acres would be buildings or paved over. The cars in the parking lots would drop oil that would run off the parking lots, people would have trash blow away (or scumbags would just litter), and the impact is the same, minus the occasional explosion for the SpaceX case (controlled or otherwise).

 

Yes, that's true, but the people concerned about the environmental impact don't care about what-ifs. They are concerned about what is happening right now.

Even if the environmental impact cannot be reduced to the extent that at least some harm to wildlife is prevented, they still should try if they are serious about stopping the "tree hugger issue" like human beings. Not that completely not caring and ignoring them will necessarily not work either.

I don't recommend the use of such an argument in defence of SpaceX. It basically sounds like someone being fined for littering and saying "Your Honor, you use the roads too and must know how they look. If I didn't do it, someone else was going to, so I have done no wrong".

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The timing is odd, however.  The 'date sent' about the purportedly SX favoring 'Trump appointed idiots' in charge happened after said appointees were gone. 

I'm not 100% denying these are authentic - but RU and CN agents have gotten really good at manipulation of American public opinion via insinuations like these.  So I'm very leery about trusting 'leaks'. 

 

...

 

Edit - let me also add this: while our recent SX vs ULA vs BO discussions have all been about domestic (US) launch products and the rapidly (or not so rapidly) changing cultures (Space is Hard, Change is Harder)... there are other entities who are alarmed by SX's progress.  Places where launch tech is intrinsically tied with their military and national pride projects.  Remember - people look at other people through their own filters.  While our legends are replete with US and Soviet misunderstandings / misinterpretations of intentions & capabilities... that tendency has not stopped.  It is likely that policymakers in RU and CN cannot help but see SX as developing military capabilities for the US - and even if they view it's efforts as a National Prestige project... too often people see such as a zero-sum game: 'their' advancement is a mark against 'us.'

So while we in the US are 'comfortable' with inter-corporate competition and see these as natural and not 'government' - people outside the US see it as 'American' advancement and might just want to throw a monkey wrench into the works.  We've proven to be our own worst enemies in the past several years, easily manipulated through hints, innuendo and misinformation spread on social media -- so if it works, why stop using it?

While this edit might sound political - it's actually just a RealPolitik* reminder to readers as we view this latest 'leak' and 'controversy' to ask - 'whose purpose is served' by the release and timing of the communication (regardless of whether it is true or false).  Rather than grab our +4 Lance of Outrage and tilt at the closest windmill (ULA, Unions, Government)... we should remember the whisper-campaigns of middle school.  Not everything 'he said' or 'she said' is true.

 

Thus endeth the sermon.

 

*Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies. 

While I agree these emails appear to be fabricated- and even if they were, they should have no impact whatsoever on how the space industry actually goes about doing stuff, I would like to comment on a couple of things, to offer a different perspective on your "realpolitik"-

Spoiler

1. "It is likely that policymakers in RU and CN cannot help but see SX as developing military capabilities for the US - and even if they view it's efforts as a National Prestige project... too often people see such as a zero-sum game: 'their' advancement is a mark against 'us.'"- It should be noted this occurs in the US too sometimes. The coverage of the launch of the CSS core module (the core module- not the ensuing booster fiasco) by the Western mass media was marked by fearmongering and baseless claims of the module itself presenting a threat of some kind. I am not sure about Russia, but in China there has been zero indication SpaceX is viewed as a major threat. Unlike the Space Shuttle which had hypothetical offensive capability, beyond offering heavier launch capability for larger reconnaissance satellites, I don't see Starship having "real" military utility apart from transport- which doesn't present a tangible threat to China anyways.

2. "So while we in the US are 'comfortable' with inter-corporate competition and see these as natural and not 'government' - people outside the US see it as 'American' advancement and might just want to throw a monkey wrench into the works."- This isn't just how this is seen, this is how it is. Not to state the obvious in an offensive or insulting manner, but the United States =/= the world, and an American corporation's product is considered to be American, not "human" or "private". A couple rough examples of this- the B-36 is obviously "Convair's bird", but in practical use (operations) it is "an American bomber". A reverse example, the Tu-95 is described as a "Soviet bomber", produced by "the Soviet Union" as a deterrent, but it was very much Tupolev's plane (he had to write a letter to Stalin to convince him to allow the use of turboprops). These examples are not meant to equate government ordered bombers to privately developed Starship- but "one will use what they have" and as Starship development is taking place in the US, despite not actually being controlled by the US government, for practical reasons it can be referred to as an American rocket.

Another big reason SpaceX can be described literally (in actuality) as "American" for practical purposes as opposed to totally private- it actively tries to get NRO launches. This automatically makes SpaceX a part of the massive network of organizations and companies (whether that be the military itself or equipment developers doing early R&D) responsible for defending the US, and thus "American".

Spoilered as I do not have an intention of dragging out this aspect of the discussion of the emails.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Yes, that's true, but the people concerned about the environmental impact don't care about what-ifs. They are concerned about what is happening right now.

Even if the environmental impact cannot be reduced to the extent that at least some harm to wildlife is prevented, they still should try if they are serious about stopping the "tree hugger issue" like human beings. Not that completely not caring and ignoring them will necessarily not work either.

I don't recommend the use of such an argument in defence of SpaceX. It basically sounds like someone being fined for littering and saying "Your Honor, you use the roads too and must know how they look. If I didn't do it, someone else was going to, so I have done no wrong".

It doesn't sound like that at all. Littering has no positives. Building houses/apartments/hotels has positive benefit, building a spaceport has positive benefit. Both have externalities that potentially affect the environment. One or the other is going to happen at that site, and if not that site, if a spaceport is desired an area already covered with houses/apartments/hotels must be demolished to make way for the spaceport. That solution might mitigate the environmental concern since the destruction is already factored in—the existing structures already wrecked the place, so wrecking those to build something else is no big deal.

100% of the couple hundred acres controlled by SpaceX would have eventually have been at the very least little houses. People would plant stuff (likely invasive), and otherwise "wreck the place" from an environmental standpoint. SpaceX building in the same land is not that much different, and rocket operations are not all that frequent. I'm not seeing a big issue, and again, unless all space operations are to be in the place already ruined—the KSC area, which is vastly larger than Boca Chica, both in total area, and simply in paved/built area—then we might as well stop being interested in spaceflight, we're stuck with the sort of pace we've had in the past, and we'll all die before we see humans walk on Mars. I lived through nothing changing during the entire Shuttle era—lunar bases and Mars were "20 years off" literally every single year of the Shuttle era. I'm willing to roll the dice on that tiny sliver of coastline.

Quick check of Google Earth: The launch area is about 40 acres.

I just measured a tiny contiguous area of built up/pave/etc area at the southern tip of the Cape, and it's 333 acres, about the entire size of Boca Chica's facilities.

Just the VAB and related buildings and roads connecting VAB, office facilities, and 39A/B is 3-4 times the total area of Boca Chica (1200 acres)—including areas that they don't look to ever build on at Boca Chica.

I didn't even count the Shuttle runway, that alone is probably bigger than the entire SpaceX facility in TX.

[RyanRising]

3 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

 

By the way, this artstyle was based off the fantastic Daylight, who has done a similar piece before:

Spoiler

 

 

and here are those respective images in full:

Spoiler

 

[mikegarrison]

26 minutes ago, tater said:

It doesn't sound like that at all. Littering has no positives. Building houses/apartments/hotels has positive benefit, building a spaceport has positive benefit. Both have externalities that potentially affect the environment. One or the other is going to happen at that site, and if not that site, if a spaceport is desired an area already covered with houses/apartments/hotels must be demolished to make way for the spaceport. That solution might mitigate the environmental concern since the destruction is already factored in—the existing structures already wrecked the place, so wrecking those to build something else is no big deal.

100% of the couple hundred acres controlled by SpaceX would have eventually have been at the very least little houses. People would plant stuff (likely invasive), and otherwise "wreck the place" from an environmental standpoint. SpaceX building in the same land is not that much different, and rocket operations are not all that frequent. I'm not seeing a big issue, and again, unless all space operations are to be in the place already ruined—the KSC area, which is vastly larger than Boca Chica, both in total area, and simply in paved/built area—then we might as well stop being interested in spaceflight, we're stuck with the sort of pace we've had in the past, and we'll all die before we see humans walk on Mars. I lived through nothing changing during the entire Shuttle era—lunar bases and Mars were "20 years off" literally every single year of the Shuttle era. I'm willing to roll the dice on that tiny sliver of coastline.

Quick check of Google Earth: The launch area is about 40 acres.

I just measured a tiny contiguous area of built up/pave/etc area at the southern tip of the Cape, and it's 333 acres, about the entire size of Boca Chica's facilities.

Just the VAB and related buildings and roads connecting VAB, office facilities, and 39A/B is 3-4 times the total area of Boca Chica (1200 acres)—including areas that they don't look to ever build on at Boca Chica.

I didn't even count the Shuttle runway, that alone is probably bigger than the entire SpaceX facility in TX.

Boca Chica was not some kind of rapidly expanding city before SpaceX moved there.

I'm sorry, but it is ridiculous to be saying that any impact to the environment that SpaceX makes is just something that someone else would have done instead. The littering argument really was a fair rebuttal of that. SpaceX is not responsible for what other people do, but likewise it can not claim some sort of magical credit for preventing sprawl, especially in an area that was not experiencing sprawl when SpaceX moved in there. That's a crazy argument to even try to make.

[tater]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Boca Chica was not some kind of rapidly expanding city before SpaceX moved there.

I'm sorry, but it is ridiculous to be saying that any impact to the environment that SpaceX makes is just something that someone else would have done instead. The littering argument really was a fair rebuttal of that. SpaceX is not responsible for what other people do, but likewise it can not claim some sort of magical credit for preventing sprawl, especially in an area that was not experiencing sprawl when SpaceX moved in there. That's a crazy argument to even try to make.

Real estate here in NM used to be super cheap, not any more. People are buying land and building in places that used to be empty. Beach is incredibly finite, it wasn't built up yet, but it will be in time. I was at South Padre for spring break decades ago, the pictures I saw of it recently make it unrecognizable to me, it seems covered with high rise buildings that were not there 35 years ago.

The bottom line is that the entire facility at Boca Chica is literally smaller than the part of KSC right near the VAB and KSC offices, and the paved roads to 39A/B (plus the pads, obviously).

The build site is about 184 acres. I overestimated the launch site by a factor of 2. Using RGV photos and google earth, it's 21 acres.

"Starbase" is a little over 205 acres, total. Literally the entire place is the size of pad 39B, and the crawler road as far as the Y where it branches to 39A.

I outlined 39B (bottom center, everything inside the ring road around it), plus the crawlerway to the Y. That's how big the entire SpaceX Boca Chica facility is combined.

If 39A or B is not a grave environmental threat, neither is Boca Chica.

The Disney World and Epcot parking lots combined are 20 acres bigger than SpaceX Boca Chica.

Edited August 26, 2021 by tater

[tater]

The KSC visitor area parking lot? 2X the Boca Chica launch facility area.

[mikegarrison]

1 minute ago, tater said:

If 39A or B is not a grave environmental threat, neither is Boca Chica.

This continues to be an irrelevant comparison.

SpaceX is not at Canaveral. NASA did not write SpaceX's EIS or make the promises that SpaceX made. It doesn't matter what the USAF or NASA is doing in Florida any more than it matters what Ford is doing in Detroit or what Sony is doing in Tokyo. SpaceX will be judged on how they measure up to their own promises and the EIS that they wrote and signed.

SpaceX has the opportunity right now to not repeat the environmental problems that industry has made for the last 200 years. But it's worrisome that their attitude seems to be focused on "regulations are meant to be ignored in the name of moving fast and getting the job done". They are particularly vulnerable to a PR disaster, IMO, because:

a) their relationship with supposedly-green Tesla

b) their focus on Mars leaves them wide open to charges that they care more about Mars than Earth

c) right now the whole "billionaires playing god in space" thing is super unpopular among the general public

[tater]

Meh. Not seeing it, though I suppose you are right that the public can be easily confused by their innumeracy.

The total environmental impact of Boca Chica is certainly lower than just a tiny fraction of the built area at KSC—a very similar coastal wetland region, so very much comparable.

So we have daily traffic at KSC (which aside from air pollution also has huge runoff issues (oil, rubber, etc from all the cars)). Huge numbers of people working at KSC (10K+ just KSC, and added visitors), with related waste issues. Many launch pads, and LVs using RP-1, and many with hypergolics aboard.  Loads of impacts routinely, and more if accidents.

SpaceX meeting whatever EIS requirements they have to meet is fine, and they should do that—but even if they did almost nothing, it's noise compared to KSC impact doing all they can, just because merely being there at all is doing most of the impact.

As for PR, people seem to think carbon credits somehow buy off damage, so SpaceX can make their own LOX, split some C and water to make CH4, and claim they are neutral to the public for PR—all done with solar panels. Actual impact is basically nil compared to all kinds of other coastal business, and their impact will be thus mitigated (on paper).

Edited August 26, 2021 by tater

[tater]

 

 

[Beccab]

 

The test tank lives! I don't have pics but the one below unfortunately as it was late night, but it has been doing a cryo test for a while with venting and condensation. It is filled witn nitrogen and not methane / LOX, so for the first time they were able to leave the road open during the whole testing

The bottom hatches of S20 were closed as well, so they may be getting ready to do a cryo test with that as well

B4 COPV skeleton aerocover installed, either for a fit check or to complete mounting it while it is already installed

Road closure later today, very likely to roll GSE 7 out. Iirc, only GSE 8 will be needed after that

 

Booster QD arm has been installed shortly ago( not to be confused with ship QD arm), which was one of the last milestones that prevent the OLM from being operational. SpaceX may or may not be ready to fuel the booster partially for a static fire on the orbital pad now

[Beccab]

Tank during testing